AI Copyright Law for Non-Humans, with Joel MacMull, Shannon Lietz, and Mark Miller
2024/01/16
再生時間： 24 分
ポッドキャスト

カートのアイテムが多すぎます

ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。

カートに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました

ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました

AI Copyright Law for Non-Humans, with Joel MacMull, Shannon Lietz, and Mark Miller

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

サマリー
In today's episode, we examine the case of Steven Thaler trying to copyright protect a piece of artwork generated by his instructions to an AI creation engine. We'll start with Joel's overview of the case.
The Thaler case is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is obviously that it deals with AI, but it is also an extension of existing legal principles. I mean, the long and short of it is, was that Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright with the Copyright Office. He indicated that he was the claimant, but that the author was essentially his creativity machine. This was essentially some code that he developed in an effort to create an image. The Copyright Office rejected his application on grounds that, at least as applied for, there did not appear to be any human authorship.
And, oh, backstory, one of the requirements of the Copyright Office, as recently as earlier this year in February, is that human authorship is necessary for subject matter that is amenable to being copyrighted in the United States.

続きを読む一部表示

あらすじ・解説

In today's episode, we examine the case of Steven Thaler trying to copyright protect a piece of artwork generated by his instructions to an AI creation engine. We'll start with Joel's overview of the case.

The Thaler case is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is obviously that it deals with AI, but it is also an extension of existing legal principles. I mean, the long and short of it is, was that Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright with the Copyright Office. He indicated that he was the claimant, but that the author was essentially his creativity machine. This was essentially some code that he developed in an effort to create an image. The Copyright Office rejected his application on grounds that, at least as applied for, there did not appear to be any human authorship.

And, oh, backstory, one of the requirements of the Copyright Office, as recently as earlier this year in February, is that human authorship is necessary for subject matter that is amenable to being copyrighted in the United States.

続きを読む一部表示